You are the one with the ridiculous idea of forcing women to allow parasites to damage their bodies and personal lives against their will, so you tell us if you think they should also be thrown in jail for drinking.

Lets also not forget that the right's ONLY counter to premarital sex is abstinence. They cant even get vaccinated to eradicate a cervix threatening STD because "they shouldnt be having sex anyway, they dont need it". We're talking about eradicating a disease FOREVER in one generation of people...and that's the reason we cant do it??!!

Will she die or suffer serious health complications if she goes ahead with the birth.

Maybe. Maybe not. Hard to say, especially early on (say, just after conception). By the way, Freak wasn't just referring the threat to a woman's health. You might want to read his actual post again. You clearly didn't read the last sentence the first time around.

B) I want to force women to have to deal with the responsibility of a life they chose to create if it doesn't harm them.

Ahh, so it's a penalty thing. Bearing children as punishment. No doubt you'll state otherwise in your next post, but that's what this one says.

EDIT: At least you're being consistent with Biblegod. The Book of Genesis states that the pain of childbirth is womankind's punishment for Eve's transgression of eating the fruit. I suppose it's your holy duty to make sure women don't skip out on this punishment.

What should the replacement punishment be, if a woman skips out on her biological punishment via abortion?

EDIT: The most logical replacement punishment, according to your reasoning, would be forced insemination (artificial or otherwise). You've now directly claimed that childbirth is an appropriate punishment for the woman's indiscretion, so it's the most logical one to apply.

Haha. This is kinda funny. JTW you are such a squirmer. Why not just come out and say what you think, rather than posting cryptic one-liners and using passive aggressive comments to avoid criticism and culpability for your opinions.

If you think that a pregnancy doesn't harm a woman, damage her body, irreversibly change her and severely affect her social life, then you obviously have never closely known a pregnant woman. I will leave it there since your ignorance and chauvinism is overwhelming.

Logged

When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bike. Then I realised, the Lord doesn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me. - Emo Philips

What should the replacement punishment be, if a woman skips out on her biological punishment via abortion?

EDIT: The most logical replacement punishment, according to your reasoning, would be forced insemination (artificial or otherwise). You've now directly claimed that childbirth is an appropriate punishment for the woman's indiscretion, so it's the most logical one to apply.

This is the crux. When does life deserve to be protected? The punishment imo should coincide with whatever the state homicide laws are.

So the death penalty is acceptable to you, then, if that's what the state homicide laws include. After all, it's premeditated.

I'd also like to point out, that pregnancy by rape is not an exception to such reasoning. To allow rape victims to abort a zygote, if one values the zygote as much as one does a child, would be morally equivalent to allowing a mother to kill an infant conceived in rape. Or to kill her teenaged offspring, even.

So what we have, under your reasoning, is a potential death penalty for pregnant women who abort, even if they were raped. Harsh.

If we conclude that the fetus is a person worthy of the right to not be aborted, does that then give us the right to force the mother to bring it to term?

It would give us the right to make it illegal for her to take deliberate action to harm her fetus. Complying with this would most likely result in the woman carrying the fetus to term, though the law would not need to explicitly state that she do so.

Quote

Better yet, how the heck would you force a woman to bring a fetus to term? You and I both know it's next to impossible to enforce, because it's her body.

It'd be easier to enforce a no-abortion law than, say, copyright laws on the internet.

Quote

Mooby your fatal problem here is your complete lack of consideration that the fetus is a parasite on the mother, and not an independant person.

A fetus is not a parasite. Unless, of course, we're allowing casual definitions, in which case I'll be informing the Creationists that "just a theory" is now a legitimate argument.

Quote

It does not become an independant person until it is born.

It seems you're implying that a person needs to be an independent person to gain rights. I'm going to hold off on a response because I want to know two things:1. What is an "independent person?"2. Why give rights only to an "independent person?"

Quote

We don't force a mother to give a dieing child her left kidney, and we don't force a mother to allow a fetus to parasite off of her. Once you figure out how to beam the baby out of her and into an incubator, then you can reasonably pursue the angle that all fetus' deserve a chance at life. Until then, you are on very shaky ground indeed.

What exactly does a kidney transplant have anything to do with not terminating a pregnancy? I'd say a closer analogy is that we don't force a mother to give her child a kidney, but if she kills the kid she should be prosecuted. By the same token, we don't "force" a mother to do anything, but if she tries to kill the fetus we can then prosecute.

Quote

Now, I know Mooby doesn't believe in the Dark Ages, but the point stands.

The point is hogwash. I'm against parents sexually abusing their kids but I'm not about to establish a government agency to do random child rectal examinations.

Let's go ahead and get Mooby's response while we're here. I'd like to know what solutions he is proposing for the matter of pregnant women who have abortions and for the women who don't want their children.

I never said I was proposing anything. That's a different discussion for a different topic. Or, while I'm informing the Creationists that evolution is "just a theory," should I also let them know that the Big Bang is fair game for an evolution discussion?

Quote

It's easy to be heroic and "save" the life of the fetus when all you have to do is act high and mighty and shit on the "morality" of the mother. How much money are you prepared to put in the place of your mouth to really give that child a chance to have a decent life?

Red herring. I'll leave it up to you to figure out why. If you can't, here's a hint: similar red-herring arguments were used to support institutionalized racial discrimination in the United States a century ago. Perhaps you'll be able to see it more clearly outside the abortion issue.

Quote

Oh, and feel free to elaborate on the matter of why you think life begins at conception and how you arrived at the conclusion that your points are so objectively better than anyone else's that yours should be enshrined into law.

Well that's because A) it's Freak's opinion and they're entitled to it and B) I want to force women to have to deal with the responsibility of a life they chose to create if it doesn't harm them.

Have you really ever been able to force anyone to "be" anything? And why should anyone care (or legislate) what you think women should be forced to do, in the name of responsibility?

Forcing women to deal with the responsibility of a life they "chose" to create is taking children, and child rearing, quite lightly, I think. A disturbingly large percentage of unwanted children are neglected and/or abused. I think that basically confirms that even being forced to have the child won't necessarily make a woman any more responsible. And now, an innocent child pays the price for it. Not only that, but abuse and neglect increase a child's likelihood of participating in antisocial behavior, i.e., crime. Which creates yet more suffering. It can be a domino effect of suffering, an endless cycle that gets passed on from generation to generation.

How is that sort of suffering better than being aborted before you can be abused or neglected, and maybe even go on to abuse and neglect others yourself? And how is it fair, to the child in particular?

If I had to choose the way my children died, I'd rather they were taken out quickly, before they ever knew what hit them, as opposed to being slowly tortured over a number of years until they were irreparably damaged emotionally, physically, or both.

Until all children can be guaranteed a loving home, with adequate care, then abortion will be a necessity. I don't care who provides the home, whether it be the bio parents, adoptive parents, foster parents, or the state - but until someone is seeing to these children properly, I can't condone them being left to rot in a miserable life by uncaring parents.

Why is this an argument from the extremes? Either a fetus always has rights or it never has rights? Is that the only option? This is exactly the type of extremism that has paralyzed American society on this very issue. Why doesn't the current standard balance the rights of BOTH mother and child adequately?

Personally? I draw the line at the formation of the first cell of a unique human organism. This occurs at conception.

Mooby, I was hoping you'd actually answer my question. I already know when you think a person comes into existence. You made that abundantly clear in your first post. My question had nothing to do with that. Please re-read it.

I would not allow anyone to kill a 4 year old child to do medical research. Or a 2 year old child. Or a 1 year old child. Or a child who is out of the womb for 10 minutes. Or child who is 5 minutes from being "born". Or 10 minutes before that.

If an embryo = 4 year old child then don't kill it. If not, study it for cures.

So it all comes down to "when does life begin?"

Tough question.

Logged

"And this is one big problem on these forums. Proof is needed for every statement. My proof is my faith. " -GodsDisciple

Why is this an argument from the extremes? Either a fetus always has rights or it never has rights? Is that the only option? This is exactly the type of extremism that has paralyzed American society on this very issue. Why doesn't the current standard balance the rights of BOTH mother and child adequately?Frustrated that no one has commented on that position.

Because either side of the issue tends to care only about one (the fetus) or the other (the mother).

I think many conservatives feel like Cyberia, i.e., they think that if you make your bed, you should sleep in it. I think that's a pretty crappy attitude when it comes to the seriousness of parenting, but that's just me.

However, many on the other end of the spectrum think that a woman should be free to use abortion as a form of birth control, which I also feel is a crappy attitude. If you want birth control, then freaking get on birth control. Stop before you start. It shouldn't be getting that far. But again, that's just me.

I'm not sure if it matters when life begins. There's such a thing as putting a person out of their misery; in the case of many (but not all) abortions, I think they're doing the kids a favor by preventing them from coming into what would be a miserable existence. "Life" is not the operative word, "suffering" is. Which scenario creates the absolute least amount of suffering is the question we should be asking.

I never said I was proposing anything. That's a different discussion for a different topic. Or, while I'm informing the Creationists that evolution is "just a theory," should I also let them know that the Big Bang is fair game for an evolution discussion?

I think I was pointedly noting that you were not proposing anything. That's the problem. It IS relevant. You should be proposing something.

Red herring. I'll leave it up to you to figure out why. If you can't, here's a hint: similar red-herring arguments were used to support institutionalized racial discrimination in the United States a century ago. Perhaps you'll be able to see it more clearly outside the abortion issue.

I think that you are setting artificially narrow boundaries. I want to figure out whether your stance here is one you hold in abstract or one that holds real value to you. How much do you care about the lives of these fetuses? It seems to me what you propose is similar to the emancipation of the slaves. You are basically prepared to force their owners to kick them out into the streets, into a world you have every reason to know will be hostile to them and that they will be unprepared for. Our nation decided that emancipating the blacks actually WASN'T enough. They had to also have access to equal education. They had to have equal access to employment opportunities. The things I mentioned that you unilaterally rules out of bounds have actually been ruled specifically in-bounds in our society, because they are important. To emancipate the slaves but not make preparations for their adequate education is wrong. We tried simply giving them their lives and their freedom under the law, then decided that it was flatly inadequate.

So, I'll ask you again. What are you prepared to do to ensure proper pre-natal care? What are you prepared to do to ensure social support for the mother? What about proper sex ed? What about radically increasing the availability of birth control methods like the Depo shot or IUDs? If you start taking more serious preparations for mothers, when you start providing some real social support structure for teen mothers, poor mothers, poor children, unwanted children, children of teen mothers, etc., I suspect that as you work your way down towards fetuses from the mothers, by the time you get to the fetuses, you may find that the size of the issue had shrunk considerably.

These are steps you could take without infringing on the rights of the women. These are steps you could take to reduce abortions right now, even under Roe v. Wade. The anti-abortion crowd is so shallow in their conception of the issue, and you reflect that here. If you provided real healthcare, sex ed, and reproductive control options to young women, if the foster care system and the adoption systems weren't already so massively underfunded and overwhelmed, if there were social support systems in place for the mothers like more accessible and affordable child care services or low interest rate short-term loan programs, maybe you could save many of those fetuses that way, in a way that wasn't divisive or that took away the rights of a human being to make his or her own medical decisions. For someone who really wanted to save the lives of the little fetuses, these options would be on the table, absolutely. For someone that just wanted to get on a soapbox and harangue other people, they'd probably be where you are, in denial of the relevance of these sorts of ideas.

You said you think a fetus is a person and should have the rights of a person under the law. You advocate the overturning of Roe v. Wade. I don't think you said "the opposite" of what I posted.

Furthermore, I would like you to go ahead and answer. Should spontaneous abortion be considered involuntary manslaughter? Should birth control that prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg be outlawed and those that use it subject to 25 to life? If we could prove that a woman intentionally willed a fetus to abort, should that be 1st degree murder? Why should Roe v. Wade be overturned? Simply because you decided to believe that a fetus is a human being that should have protection under the law? How did you arrive at that conclusion and how was is so clear that you feel confident imposing your personal opinion on the rest of the country?

Personally? I draw the line at the formation of the first cell of a unique human organism. This occurs at conception.

Mooby, I was hoping you'd actually answer my question. I already know when you think a person comes into existence. You made that abundantly clear in your first post. My question had nothing to do with that. Please re-read it.

I think I was pointedly noting that you were not proposing anything. That's the problem. It IS relevant. You should be proposing something.

No, it's not relevant. It's a red herring. Social structure, or lack thereof, does not have any effect on what rights, if any, a fetus should have.

Quote

It seems to me what you propose is similar to the emancipation of the slaves. You are basically prepared to force their owners to kick them out into the streets, into a world you have every reason to know will be hostile to them and that they will be unprepared for. Our nation decided that emancipating the blacks actually WASN'T enough. They had to also have access to equal education. They had to have equal access to employment opportunities.

It's pointless to worry about what color shingles you're going to put on your roof when the building inspector refuses to approve your contract. Without emancipation of the slaves, the surrounding social structure is moot. Without ending abortion, the surrounding social structure is moot. We can deal with the issues as they arise.

Quote

If you start taking more serious preparations for mothers, when you start providing some real social support structure for teen mothers, poor mothers, poor children, unwanted children, children of teen mothers, etc., I suspect that as you work your way down towards fetuses from the mothers, by the time you get to the fetuses, you may find that the size of the issue had shrunk considerably.

And if we had educated the slave owners then perhaps the slave issue would only be a minor problem today. If we educated the NAZIS, then perhaps the concentration camps would only hold Jews rather than exterminate them. If we educated the ancient Greeks and Romans, perhaps we'd have seen a slight reduction in the number of infants "exposed" to death. Given my views on where life begins, your suggestion is wholly inadequate.

Quote

These are steps you could take without infringing on the rights of the women. These are steps you could take to reduce abortions right now, even under Roe v. Wade. The anti-abortion crowd is so shallow in their conception of the issue, and you reflect that here. If you provided real healthcare, sex ed, and reproductive control options to young women, if the foster care system and the adoption systems weren't already so massively underfunded and overwhelmed, if there were social support systems in place for the mothers like more accessible and affordable child care services or low interest rate short-term loan programs, maybe you could save many of those fetuses that way, in a way that wasn't divisive or that took away the rights of a human being to make his or her own medical decisions. For someone who really wanted to save the lives of the little fetuses, these options would be on the table, absolutely. For someone that just wanted to get on a soapbox and harangue other people, they'd probably be where you are, in denial of the relevance of these sorts of ideas.

There are steps you could take without infringing on the rights of slave owners. There are steps you could take to reduce slave injuries right now, even under Dred Scott v. Sanford. The abolitionist crowd is so shallow in their conception of the issue, and you reflect that here. If you provided tasers instead of whips, researched inexpensive security fences, if the police force and the Fugitive Slave Laws weren't already so massively underfunded and overwhelmed, if there were social support systems in place for the owners like affordable runaway reconciliation services or standard low-cost/high efficiency punishment plans, maybe you could save many of those slaves that way, in a way that wasn't divisive or that took away the rights of a human being to make his or her own property decisions. For someone that really wanted to save slaves from pain, these options would be on the table, absolutely. For someone that just wanted to get on a soapbox and harangue other people, they'd probably be where you are, in denial of the relevance of these sorts of ideas.

Quote

You said you think a fetus is a person and should have the rights of a person under the law. You advocate the overturning of Roe v. Wade. I don't think you said "the opposite" of what I posted.

You said, "you arrived at the conclusion that your points are so objectively better than anyone else's that yours should be enshrined into law." I said, "I realize that I'll probably never change your viewpoint on the issue, but that's no reason to stay silent. History has shown us that views can change." You accused me of arrogance when I wasn't arrogant. You accused me of actively trying to press my views into law, when I'm trying to change minds. You accused me of thinking that I was objectively better than anyone else, when my admission that I probably won't persuade others is a recognition of others to arrive at a rational conclusion. Your accusations are indeed the opposite of what I actually posted.

Quote

Furthermore, I would like you to go ahead and answer. Should spontaneous abortion be considered involuntary manslaughter? Should birth control that prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg be outlawed and those that use it subject to 25 to life? If we could prove that a woman intentionally willed a fetus to abort, should that be 1st degree murder? Why should Roe v. Wade be overturned? Simply because you decided to believe that a fetus is a human being that should have protection under the law? How did you arrive at that conclusion and how was is so clear that you feel confident imposing your personal opinion on the rest of the country?

I'm not sure if it matters when life begins. There's such a thing as putting a person out of their misery;

It doesn't matter when life begins? By that logic, a mother can go ahead and kill her 3 day old baby if she thinks the baby will have a "miserable" life. In the United States, you are not allowed to murder another human being. No Mother has the right to kill their BORN child. Therfore, the most important quesiton IS:

"When does life Begin"

Logged

"And this is one big problem on these forums. Proof is needed for every statement. My proof is my faith. " -GodsDisciple

I'm not sure if it matters when life begins. There's such a thing as putting a person out of their misery;

It doesn't matter when life begins? By that logic, a mother can go ahead and kill her 3 day old baby if she thinks the baby will have a "miserable" life. In the United States, you are not allowed to murder another human being. No Mother has the right to kill their BORN child. Therfore, the most important quesiton IS:

"When does life Begin"

I thought I killed this one off a few pages ago, but ah well.There is no such thing as "Life"Therefore there is no determining when this imaginary status begins.

*EDIT*I apoligise for confusing this thread with the "Abortion" thread, for that is where I posted the relevant post.

And if we had educated the slave owners then perhaps the slave issue would only be a minor problem today. If we educated the NAZIS, then perhaps the concentration camps would only hold Jews rather than exterminate them. If we educated the ancient Greeks and Romans, perhaps we'd have seen a slight reduction in the number of infants "exposed" to death. Given my views on where life begins, your suggestion is wholly inadequate.

I have news for you, sir. Roe v. Wade is now lodged in as Supreme Court precedent. You are still a ways off from overturning that decision. Would you care to do something in the meantime, or don't you care about the lives of fetuses that much?

There are steps you could take without infringing on the rights of slave owners. There are steps you could take to reduce slave injuries right now, even under Dred Scott v. Sanford. The abolitionist crowd is so shallow in their conception of the issue, and you reflect that here. If you provided tasers instead of whips, researched inexpensive security fences, if the police force and the Fugitive Slave Laws weren't already so massively underfunded and overwhelmed, if there were social support systems in place for the owners like affordable runaway reconciliation services or standard low-cost/high efficiency punishment plans, maybe you could save many of those slaves that way, in a way that wasn't divisive or that took away the rights of a human being to make his or her own property decisions. For someone that really wanted to save slaves from pain, these options would be on the table, absolutely. For someone that just wanted to get on a soapbox and harangue other people, they'd probably be where you are, in denial of the relevance of these sorts of ideas.

Actually, of course, these things did occur stepwise. Now, it appears, you'd like to undo the steps. Instead of learning from history, and seeing that a) you can accomplish a lot at the same time as you work for a larger victory, b) you could demonstrate that this was actually born from conviction and passion rather than malice and perhaps actually win people over to supporting your now unpopular cause this way, and c) achieving your stated goal without making corresponding social improvements leads to misery for the very group you are allegedly attempting to save, you just push on blindly like a horse being whipped. In the wake of Emancipation and the end of the Civil War, lynchings rose to an all-time high. Prohibition of abortions is going to lead to increased suicide among young mothers, deaths from illegal abortions, murders by fathers and husbands. For someone who claims to be interested in preserving life, you seem remarkably unconcerned about these things. There will be increases in premature babies and unhealthy babies. You are also going to see more babies left in dumpsters, at hospitals and churches, malnourished by incompetent or impoverished mothers, and more babies that are victims of abuse. That these things will happen is beyond doubt. Yet you don't care at all. Do you think this might affect someone who is ambivalent to Roe v. Wade and their consideration of possibly supporting your efforts, to see you completely and willfully ignore these things?

You said, "you arrived at the conclusion that your points are so objectively better than anyone else's that yours should be enshrined into law." I said, "I realize that I'll probably never change your viewpoint on the issue, but that's no reason to stay silent. History has shown us that views can change."

Of course you won't. Your policy will lead to misery and you are stating very clearly that you know and do not care. How in the world could anyone in good conscience decide to take up with such a position?

Furthermore, you would like Roe v. Wade overturned. You said just that. That means that you are in favor of rescinding the federally guaranteed fundamental right of a woman to have an abortion. This is where you decide for someone else that your opinion supercedes theirs. I asked you how you can justify that position. You have yet to answer.

You accused me of thinking that I was objectively better than anyone else, when my admission that I probably won't persuade others is a recognition of others to arrive at a rational conclusion. Your accusations are indeed the opposite of what I actually posted.

Not at all. You are openly stating your desire to inflict your opinion on others. You would like to take someone who does not agree with your definition of where life begins and make their opinion irrelevant. As a pro-choice person myself, I couldn't care less if you disagree with my opinion about when life begins. My position does not force itself upon you. You and everyone else remain free to pursue whatever personal path you like. However, this is not reciprocated by your position. You are not content to hold a personal disgust against abortion. You want to overturn Roe v. Wade. That's a whole different ballgame. It is arrogance and I'd like to see where you can even begin to justify it.

No, I won't get an answer because you don't have one. Yours is a bankrupt philosophy. I will certainly grant you have the right to hold a different opinion on when life begins. I also certainly support you in your efforts to convince people that your opinion on when life begins is better than some other opinion. Honestly, best of luck with that. It's fine with me. However, when you decide that your opinion must be reflected in the law, I think you need to answer the question about how your opinion is objectively demonstrable as so exceedingly right that no other personal opinion on the matter can be allowed to hold sway under the law.

Personally? I draw the line at the formation of the first cell of a unique human organism. This occurs at conception.

Mooby, I was hoping you'd actually answer my question. I already know when you think a person comes into existence. You made that abundantly clear in your first post. My question had nothing to do with that. Please re-read it.

I bolded the quality for you.

So when you refer to someone as a "person" you have nothing else in mind with that term, at all, than their biological uniqueness? I mean, that's what I'm forced to believe, unless there are other attributes that you consider to be part of personhood. But if such other attributes existed, then surely you would have listed them when I asked the original question.